Ski Reviews

2020 Blizzard Firebird HRC Ski Review

2020 Blizzard Firebird HRC Ski Review: // Ski Reviews

Over the past few months, we've reviewed a lot of new all-mountain and freeride skis being released for the 2020 ski season. This week, we're changing the focus to frontside carving skis, specifically the new Blizzard Firebird HRC. The Firebird collection was introduced this past ski season and was quickly adopted by skiers who value precision and power. These skis are now the majority of Blizzard's frontside-focused skis, with the Quattro series trimmed down to just three skis intended more for recreational cruising than high speed, aggressive carving.

The Firebird collection is now quite robust. It's home to their FIS certified race skis, junior race skis, and also more consumer-based skis like this Firebird HRC. There are five "consumer" skis in the series, and the SRC, HRC, and WRC share the same construction. The Firebird Competition 76 and Race Ti models both drop some of the features found in the SRC, HRC, and WRC, but accordingly offer lower price points. The easiest way to think about the SRC, HRC, and WRC is by their varying turn radii. The SRC is the shortest turn radius, more a slalom ski than anything else with its 11-13.5 meter radius range. The WRC is the longest, ranging from 16.5 to 19.5 meters. Both of those skis are 68 mm underfoot. The HRC, however, is wider. It has a 76 mm waist width and its turn radii fall in between the SRC and WRC, ranging from 13 to 17 meters. The sidecut is also multi-radius for each length; short in the tip and lengthening underfoot. On paper, it seems to be the most versatile of the Firebird skis both in terms of turn shapes and the snow conditions it can handle. Before we dive into performance, let's take a look at construction.

2020 Blizzard Firebird HRC Ski Review: Ski Spec Image

The Firebird HRC uses Blizzard's World Cup Construction. A full-length wood core is sandwiched between two full-length sheets of Titanal metal. That's relatively traditional construction for a race ski, but Blizzard takes it a step further with their Carbon Armor and Carbon Spine technology. Carbon Armor is a layer of bi-directional carbon fiber positioned from edge to edge under the bindings. It adds stability and precision, which helps in the initiation phase of the turn. Carbon Spine refers to two bi-directional carbon fiber layers positioned vertically into the wood core. This gives the ski exceptional energy and rebound, which helps snap you out of the second part of the turn. Blizzard spent a lot of time doing research and development with the Firebird skis, bouncing concepts off their athletes and engineers, refining their construction, and ultimately trying to find the difference between a good run and a great run, and we think they've done it.

The Firebird HRC absolutely rips and is also a whole lot of fun to ski. One of Blizzard's goals was to bring some fun back into frontside skiing, both in performance and attitude, and we think they've done a phenomenal job. All too often high-end frontside carving skis are so unforgiving they can be described as punishing, but the Firebird HRC achieves ultra-high performance with a smoother feel than most. Blizzard has done a tremendous job achieving high levels of torsional stiffness while maintaining smooth longitudinal flex. It gives them a relatively unique feel and makes them a pure joy to ski. You take the stability for granted, but Carbon Armor is definitely doing its job alongside those metal laminates. In my opinion, you really feel the Carbon Spine and the energy and responsiveness it provides. They're very snappy, which makes it exceptionally satisfying to load the ski up, get it to flex, then reap the benefits. The FDT binding plate that Blizzard uses is 10% softer compared to their World Cup level Piston Plate, which I think helps the performance of these skis and is part of the reason the longitudinal flex feels so smooth. It's still a burly ski, don't get me wrong, but the flex pattern is less violent than some skis I've been on.

2020 Blizzard Firebird HRC Ski Review: Wide Action Image 12020 Blizzard Firebird HRC Ski Review: Wide Action Image 2

The turn radius of the Firebird HRC is very satisfying as well. It doesn't feel like a slalom turn and doesn't feel like a GS turn, it's somewhere in between. You can also gas pedal the ski into shorter turns relatively easily, thanks to that multi-radius design. Skiing style, technique, and how you're weighting the ski goes a long way. Driving the tip of the ski will get it to swing into shorter turns, while keeping your weight more centered and "riding" the ski results in longer turns. This is really fun for a frontside carving ski. Sometimes I feel too locked into a particular turn shape on a system carving ski, but the Firebird HRC feels willing and even eager to make different turns. Skiers who specifically like to make long radius turns may want to go with the WRC, as the difference between a 17 meter turn radius and a 19.5 meter radius is fairly significant (that's the 182 cm HRC and the 185 cm WRC). For those looking to make really big, arcing turns, it might even be worth going with the non-FIS version of the GS ski, which offers 22.5 and 25.7 m radii in the 177 and 184 cm lengths. Keep in mind, however, that if you're going with one of those skis with a longer turn radius, it's also going to be a much narrower ski.

Which brings us to the width of the Firebird HRC. Width for frontside carving skis can be tricky. Too wide and you lose valuable quickness edge to edge. Too narrow and the skis will get bogged down too easily, making them only feel appropriate on really firm days or early in the morning on perfect corduroy. This 76 mm width is a really nice compromise. It still feels very quick edge to edge, especially if you put it up against wider all-mountain skis like the Brahma 82 and 88. On the other hand, it can handle some soft snow conditions without feeling terrifying. In fact, its performance in soft snow is pretty darn impressive. On a ski this narrow, it's the most fun we can remember having in soft snow conditions. The smooth longitudinal flex really helps, giving the ski a touch of forgiveness in softer snow, and the 76 mm width doesn't get bogged down as easily as sub-70 mm skis. We skied it on a snowy day with the Blizzard crew down at Cannon and had a whole lot of fun. Those on the Firebird HRC didn't have too much trouble keeping up with other skiers on Rustler 9s and Brahma 88s when the snow got soft, but then rocketed ahead on firmer, more recently groomed spots.

If you're looking for a frontside ripper, you should have these Firebird skis on your list. We're big fans of them, and they definitely take the performance we found in the Quattro series to a whole new level as far as consumer carving skis go. We liked those Quattros too, but they didn't quite have the performance and attitude of the Firebirds. There are plenty of choices within the line too, as we've touched on throughout this article. The HRC feels like a great choice for a daily-driver carving ski because of that extra width underfoot and its ability to make different turn shapes, but it would also be perfectly appropriate as a beer-league race ski. The manager of our physical store is swapping out his beer league skis for a fresh pair of Firebird HRCs. Considering he has access to just about any ski in the world, that says a lot.

2020 Blizzard Firebird HRC Ski Review: Available Soon Image


Written by Jeff Neagle on 06/05/19

28 thoughts on “2020 Blizzard Firebird HRC Ski Review

  1. Hi SE,

    I recently hired some Blizzard RC Ti's for a few days, which were a couple of years old. Enjoyed them a lot for piste skiing, but I could have potentially got away with something slightly stiffer to add some more reassurance when trying to carve on firmer snow.

    That ski doesn't exist in the 2020 lineup, does it have a direct replacement under a different name or have things changed a lot? Would the HRC be an appropriate equivalent in 2020 or would they be substantially harder to handle? My wider ski is a 180cm Rustler 10.



    1. Hi Phil!
      If you're looking for a high-performance ski to handle on-trail carving, the HRC, whether a direct descendant of the RC or not, is a fantastic choice. The Rustler 10 paired with this would make a phenomenal 2-ski quiver. They're stiff without being overly demanding, so it's a nice mix of performance and play. Have fun!

  2. Quick question: is the HRC lightweight, compared to the WRC for example? I ask, because one review states that is sometimes becomes unstable because it is very light weight. If it has the same construction as the WRC and SRC, how 'super light' can it be? Do you perchance have any numbers? Thanks.

  3. I ski the bramha, bonafide and rustler 11 all in 180 cm. I am 5' 10" 170 lbs UT old powder hound, I never raced so I'm not too familiar with sizing for "race" skis, but from the length choices it appears I might go with 174 in the Firebird HRC? Or are there any advantages of sticking with the 180 length ? Thanks.

    1. Hi Gigiski!
      Just put them on the scale because I was curious as well. The 182 cm HRC weighed 10.6 pounds per pair while the WRC in the 180 was 10.0. So just a slight difference in overall weight, but the added length as well as width seems to make up the difference. With the shorter turning radius of the HRC, I can understand why some skiers might view it as "unstable," although in a relative sense. It doesn't really want to go straight like the WRC, so that's probably the biggest difference in terms of feel. Hope that helps!

      1. Hi CJ!
        The HRC goes from the 174 to a 182, so unfortunately you wouldn't be a clean 180 across the board. The WRC comes in a 180! At the end of the day, I'd say your size combined with the nature and personality of the ski points you to the 174. They do have a shorter turn radius than the 182, so be prepared for that. The stability at speed and the longer turn radius are really the only advantages of the 182, but I think you'll be impressed with the overall performance of the 174 for sure. Hope that helps!

    1. Great comparison, Patrik!
      I'd say the main difference is the weight. The Blizzard just feels like a lighter ski with the carbon laminates. The Nordica has more of a traditional/classic build versus the more modern Firebird. As a result, the Firebird is a bit more lively while the Nordica feels burlier. Both are insanely fast.

    1. Hi Eric!
      For more versatility, I'd go with the 84, but if you're on-trail and in hard snow most of the time, the HRC has a much more race-like feel, but also requires more skier input. So if you're looking for that high-performance and precise feel, the HRC is hard to beat. Hope that helps!

  4. Comparing the HRC to the competition 76. What are you losing going with the comp from the hrc?

    How much softer is the comp?

    1. Hi Timothy!
      The HRC has an extra layer of carbon, and that does a pretty good job of stiffening it up. Also a better binding with the HRC for what that's worth to you--doesn't make a huge difference to most skiers. Have fun!

  5. HI.

    I currently ski on a Head Magnum 170cm, this is my second pair of these skis, and i am looking to switch it up a little. Was looking for a wider ski and came across the HRC. How would you compare the two? Since they don't have the same size, how would you suggest picking a ski length? I am 5'11 and185lb, and am a pretty aggressive skier.

  6. How does the construction of the Firebird HRC compare to the Nordica Spitfire RB 76? From what I can tell, the HRC has two full sheets of Titanal. While the RB 76 uses Titanal "strips" over the edges. Would you say that makes the HRC a stiffer ski than the RB 76?

    1. Hi David!
      It's a very similar overall feel. Same parent company (they'll say it's totally different construction, but when you're dealing with a 76 mm "race" ski, it's all going to have shared tech), but I've noticed the HRC to be lighter and quicker, even with the slight variation in the uses of metal. Both use extensive carbon as well to stiffen certain zones of the ski without adding a bunch of weight. Too close to call, both are total rocket ships. Have fun!

  7. Hi there,
    Great, detailed reviews and I’ve enjoyed reading the Q&A too. I’m an east coast skier looking to add a true dedicated carving ski to my collection. I ski the Brahma 88 (180cm) most days, but We have a lot of icy groomer days on east coast. I love big sweeping turns but like to have the option to tighten them up when I need to dump speed or avoid people.

    I’m worried the HRC will feel a little to unstable at high speed. Does it seem like I’d be happier with the WRC?


    1. HI Gabe!
      I'd be surprised if you find the speed limit of the HRC, but if you're looking for true race performance, then there's not much else better than the WRC. The narrower waist of the WRC does make the balance point a bit trickier, so be prepared for that! Have fun!

    2. Hi Gabe,

      Unstable at speed, HRC it is not, if anything it'll make you constantly go faster, which may or may not be a great thing, depending on how you like to ski.

  8. How does this compare to the atomic X9 wb? I've got some Atomic S9s, and some Brahma 88s, but I want a ski for free skiing with my kids "out west" in CO and MT. Something that can really lay trenches but works in the spring snow. I'm guessing they are fairly similar, but the Firebird is just slightly more playful and versatile?

    1. Hi Erik!
      Yup! The Atomic is basically a wide race ski, but the Firebird, in addition to being a wider race ski, feels lighter and almost has that front side/all-mountain personality. Have fun!

    1. Hi KC!
      Pretty similar overall feel and performance, with the ST wanting to be on edge a bit more than the HRC. More of a GS style with the Blizzard. Have fun!

    1. Hi Eric!
      A bit longer of a turn radius on the 182, so depends on how fast you wanna go. Your size puts you right in the middle, so I'd put it back to you and your level of aggressiveness and your preferred turn shape. They're pretty stiff and stable, so the 174 won't feel too short unless you're going really, really fast. Have fun!

  9. Good Day,
    Curious as to what length you would recommend in the HRC. I'm 5'-7", 150#. Like the speed, but will be taking them to the moguls as well. Been skiing on some 1995 Rossi EX's 188cm and before that Olin 195cm. That was before short skis were stable. Would 166 be too short? Should I go with the 174's?
    Also, when do you foresee the new skis to be released for 2021?
    Thanks- hope you're coping with the shutdown.

    1. HI Steve!
      I think the 166 is the correct length, but that's going to be a big jump (downward) in terms of length, so just be prepared for a different type of feeling and performance. I don't think the 174 would be too long, so if you're at all worried about the -25/30 cm drop, you could go for the 174, just might be a bit of a handful in bumps. We usually get our 2021 stuff in during the middle of the summer, and at this point, we haven't heard otherwise. Take care!

      1. Hi there,
        last question: length vs. weight vs. current set up really hit home perfectly.
        I'm about 145lbs, 5'-8"currently skiing the 'OG' Nordica Spitfire Pro in a 170cm.
        I'm looking pretty seriously at the HRC, but not sure if I should knock off a few cms, or add on a few (166 vs. 174).
        I'm primarily skiing east (Ontario, Quebec, Vermont), balancing my skiing solo and skiing with my kids (who are 5 and 7 y/o).
        Thanks for your thoughts!

        1. Hi Brian!
          Due to the stability of the ski, you could go 166, just keep in mind you're shortening the turn radius. If that sounds good, then double-bonus! Also easier to manage with the kids. Have fun!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *